Obamacare
Quote: boymimboI think I quoted from the IRS law on the website that said that fitness clubs were exempt from the tax. Please tell me where I'm wrong.
I didn't see Planet Fitness' name at all in that quote.
Quote: TwirdmanAgain the quote mentioned both car directly and riding shotgun so how does that refer to a bus. Second seriously what is with the hyperbole you are honestly arguing that Obama is more racially divisive and bigoted then pre Civil War era presidents like Andrew Jackson. Or even post civil war pre civil rights act presidents.
Obama has a lot of negatives but don't pretend that the hyperbole you spew is anywhere near true.
LMAO obama has holder telling schools they should let black students slide for the same things they should punish white students for. Get out of your basement once in a while. And how many years was it with jeremiah wright? 20? Refusing to go after blacks for knockout games then arresting the first white guy who does it. Not prosecuting the black panthers in Philadelphia threatening white voters with billy clubs. Now stick your head back in the sand.
Add low reality voters to democratic ranks with the low information voters too.
Quote: anonimussRefusing to go after blacks for knockout games then arresting the first white guy who does it.
Add low reality voters to democratic ranks with the low information voters too.
Well this is just wrong here are 5 people being arrested for knock out game http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/five-people-arrested-north-carolina-one-night-multiple-knockout-game-attacks-photos . It wasn't a federal case then because it is simply a case of assault so was handled by local authorities. The white guy who did it was charged with a hate crime since there was some evidence of it being a hate crime.
Also again even if you were to say Obama has bigoted divisive policy that does not show that he is the most bigoted divisive president ever which is specifically what I took issue with the hyperbole.
Quote: Beethoven9thI didn't see Planet Fitness' name at all in that quote.
The last time I checked Planet Fitness was a fitness club. You're grasping.
Am I really? Let's go back to the passage that YOU quoted.Quote: boymimboThe last time I checked Planet Fitness was a fitness club. You're grasping.
It stated that there's an exemption for "qualified physical fitness facilities". Since you're not a tax attorney, it's pure speculation on your part to say that Planet Fitness qualifies, so your opinion means pretty much nothing on this matter (as does mine). Nice try though. ;)
Quote: Beethoven9thAm I really? Let's go back to the passage that YOU quoted.
It stated that there's an exemption for "qualified physical fitness facilities". Since you're not a tax attorney, it's pure speculation on your part to say that Planet Fitness qualifies, so your opinion means pretty much nothing on this matter (as does mine). Nice try though. ;)
Ha! You know what? You're right.
Quote: Federal Register, Vol 115, No 114
On the other hand, in the case of a payment of a membership fee to a qualified physical fitness facility (QPFF) (as defined in the regulations) that includes access to indoor tanning services, the IRS and Treasury Department have determined that the access is incidental to the QPFF’s predominant business or activity and any amount attributable to such access would be difficult to calculate and administer. Thus, an amount paid to a QPFF is not a payment for indoor tanning services and the tax is not imposed on the amount paid. The regulations narrowly define QPFF to require, among other things, that the predominant business or activity of the
facility is to serve as a physical fitness facility, taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances. Thus, for example, a business predominantly engaged in providing indoor tanning or other cosmetic services cannot become a QPFF by allowing users access to exercise classes or pieces of exercise equipment. The regulations further provide that a QPFF cannot charge separately for indoor tanning services, offer such services to the public, or offer different membership fee rates based on access to indoor tanning services. Thus, a physical fitness facility that distinguishes memberships based on access to indoor tanning services is not a QPFF.
You can only say I'm fair, Beethoven.
Some bean counter and someone in legal at Planet Fitness realized that their Black Card member gave access to tanning services while their basic membership did not, and therefore, they were not a QPFF and had to charge the 10% tax on the value of the services for tanning purposes.
I'm willing to lose arguments based on facts. Sometimes I have to defeat myself! (note: it is a 10% tax on the part of the membership that applies to tanning, not to the entire membership).
Quote: boymimboHa! You know what? You're right.
[
You can only say I'm fair, Beethoven.
Yes, in all fairness, I gotta give you props on this one because most people (on both sides) will do anything possible to avoid admitting they're wrong.
A well deserved +1. *thumbs up*
Quote: boymimboI don't mind a tax on tanning services, by the way, as it's been shown to cause skin cancers when used incorrectly.
How about a tax credit for really white people?
Quote: treetopbuddyHow about a tax credit for really white people?
Actually I am surprised some enterprising attorney has not sued to get the tanning tax overturned. It is a clear case of "disparate impact" and thus violates federal anti-discrimination laws.
Lawsuits were raised, and they lost. I think the confirmation of ObamaCare as consitutional by SCOTUS covered the tanning tax.
Quote: boymimboUh huh. The tax went into place 3.5 years ago and we're talking about it now. I think that tanning salons would have sued by now if they thought it had a case. It's a health tax, not a race tax. It's actually an idiot tax, because in my opinion, you're an idiot if you use tanning salons.
Lawsuits were raised, and they lost. I think the confirmation of ObamaCare as consitutional by SCOTUS covered the tanning tax.
It would not be the tanning salons who would have standing to sue, it would be their customers. Call it a "health tax" all you like, that does not change the fact that is has a "disparate impact" on whites. Said disparate impact can throw out a law or policy, for example banks were required to lower underwriting standards because of "disparate impact" on so-called minorities. Similarly, challenges have been made to standardized tests for the same reason.
IMHO it would be a way for a sharp lawyer to make his name knwon far and wide. FWIW I do not tan even in the real sun, but if we are going to have a standard then it applies to all races, not just favored ones.
And sorry, SCOTUS only ruled on the Individual Mandate, it would not cover the tanning tax.
AOL Blames Obamacare for Plan to Reduce Retirement Benefits
Since all of their employees probably voted for Obama, this really puts a smile on my face. ;)
Quote: boymimboIt's actually an idiot tax, because in my opinion, you're an idiot if you use tanning salons.
Hey, I'm going tanning today =p
They do have their uses. Like when a Northerner heads to the Caribbean in February, he needs somewhere to prepare lest he dies from radiation. One could even argue that's a health benefit, building a base rather than scalding and increasing a risk for melanoma.
Quote: FaceHey, I'm going tanning today =p
They do have their uses. Like when a Northerner heads to the Caribbean in February, he needs somewhere to prepare lest he dies from radiation. One could even argue that's a health benefit, building a base rather than scalding and increasing a risk for melanoma.
I remember an article about how in Africa people, mostly women, were getting side effects from trying to bleach their skin lighter. The doctor involved was saying along the lines of "WTF, we have half the people getting sick bleaching themselves lighter and the other half getting skin cancer from tanning."
Is it low self-esteem or high vanity?
This puts an even bigger smile on my face. Low information voters are getting exactly what they voted for! :D
Quote: Beethoven9thObamaCare patients may encounter fewer doctors, longer wait times
This puts an even bigger smile on my face. Low information voters are getting exactly what they voted for! :D
Imagine if we had single payer:
"Well, you need an MRI, I can fit you in 10 months from now."
"Can you make it in the afternoon?"
"Possibly, but do you really plan thatfar ahead?"
"Of course I do, I have to see my GP about this bout of flu in the morning then."
So yes people will die from long lines to get certain tests and procedures. But people will die from poorly competant healthcare workers when standards are lowered.
Did anyone ever go to the doctor, and have a test, and was told "its great that you held off coming in and getting this test that you should have has 6 months ago"
No..on the contrary...in the medical field time is of the essence. The sooner you find a problem. the better chance of solving the problem.
A month or 2 can make the difference between a cure and living a long life....and an incurable situation leaving you 6 months to live.
Quote: LarryS
A month or 2 can make the difference between a cure and living a long life....and an incurable situation leaving you 6 months to live.
This is what the low info voter wants, apparently.
Thank god if you have money there will still be
competent consierge doctors to see.
Now the rich, powerful and famous will always be able to cut in front of the line. I doubt if Brad Pitt needed an MRI, he would have to wait 3 months.
The super rich generally dont have insurance...they just pay as they go.
But there will always be the "back door" open for the politicians, the rich and famous and their family to enter ahead of us common folk.
Yet under Obamacare he's forced by law to
buy an expensive policy he doesn't want or
need, or be fined. It's insanity.
Quote:Nearly 3.3 million people have signed up for health insurance through the marketplaces established by President Obama’s health care law, and about one-fourth of them are young adults, the administration said Wednesday.
[...]
Of those who signed up in the last four months, administration officials said, 53 percent are age 45 to 64 -- down slightly from 55 percent in the first three months. About 25 percent of those choosing a health insurance plan are 18 to 34. This group accounted for 24 percent of those picking plans in the first thee months.
They are about 1 million behind the original goal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/13/us/3-3-million-enrolled-in-health-care-marketplaces-more-young-people-signing-up.html?_r=0
"About 25 percent of those choosing a health insurance plan are 18 to 34."
"People 55 to 64 -- the range just below the age at which people qualify for Medicare -- represented the largest group, at 31 percent, down from 33 percent in the months from October through December."
"The administration and its allies are planning a big push to sign up more people, in the hope that total enrollment through the exchanges could reach the administration’s original goal of seven million by the end of March."
6 weeks left to try and more than double the first 10 weeks. Massive failure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/13/us/3-3-million-enrolled-in-health-care-marketplaces-more-young-people-signing-up.html?_r=1
Quote: anonimuss
"About 25 percent of those choosing a health insurance plan are 18 to 34."
No no no, it's far worse than that. Those are just
the young who CHOSE a plan, nobody knows how
many paid and are signed up. Joe Blow 22 yr old
chooses a plan, thinks about it and decides, screw
that, he's looking elsewhere. 15% is closer to the
real number and it needs to be 40% for it to work.
Just like some supporters here, 20% of those who enrolled never paid their bill and activated their policy.
We kept saying it wasn't "free" all along.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can fool 47% of the people all of the time.
Quote: AZDuffmanEnrollment in Obamacare has fallen about 50%.
Just like some supporters here, 20% of those who enrolled never paid their bill and activated their policy.
.
20% is low. In some states. like WA, it's 50% haven't
paid. It's no different than Amazon, about 25% of
the people who put something in their cart end up
not paying for it. I would think Obamacare is even
higher than 25%. And the biggest portion of those
who have paid are older and sick, the healthy young
people are buying smartphones instead of insurance.
Quote: EvenBob
20% is low. In some states. like WA, it's 50% haven't
paid. It's no different than Amazon, about 25% of
the people who put something in their cart end up
not paying for it. I would think Obamacare is even
higher than 25%. And the biggest portion of those
who have paid are older and sick, the healthy young
people are buying smartphones instead of insurance.
They probably still think it is "free health care."
"By a 16 percentage-point margin, people think the health care law is more about the government “controlling our lives” (56 percent) than about “helping individual Americans get the health care they want” (40 percent)."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/13/fox-news-poll-voters-regret-obamacare/
More and more people are figuring out the truth about Obamacare.
Waiting on the usual suspects to say how great it is and that this poll is flawed...
10...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1
Face it...the law stinks!! Poorly constructed, poorly administered.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to do? Is it supposed to make the people who know better think twice about defending Obamacare against the stupid? If that's you goal then you win! I'll let you wallow in the stupid.Quote: RonCWaiting on the usual suspects to say how great it is and that this poll is flawed...
10...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1
Quote: s2dbakerI'm not sure what this is supposed to do? Is it supposed to make the people who know better think twice about defending Obamacare against the stupid? If that's you goal then you win! I'll let you wallow in the stupid.
Actually, I know the defenders of Obamacare will always come out and say that it is better than sliced bread when in fact it is a deeply flawed program passed through the lies of the President late at night and against all of the commitments to transparency that he made.
I like how you throw out "stupid" as a thinly veiled personal insult so that you slip under the radar.
Instead of talking about the poll, the law, or anything, it is easier just to throw out an insult.
If 25% of the people feel that Obamacare has hurt them and only 9% feel it has helped them, it sounds like the law isn't meeting the goals set for it. Yes, 65% say it has not impacted them BUT we have so many parts of the law delayed that the full impact is a year or more away.
What is your prediction? That things will be better then or will the numbers be worse?
See, discussion with no name-calling or face palms.
Why would a 22-year-old even consider buying insurance, seeing as how he is covered till he turns 26?Quote: EvenBobJoe Blow 22 yr old chooses a plan, thinks about it and decides, screw that, he's looking elsewhere. 15% is closer to the
real number and it needs to be 40% for it to work.
Quote: s2dbakerWould you like me to answer in 10..9..8..7..6..5..4..3..2..1?
I am waiting for your defense of the program.
Honestly, I wish there were more good to say about the program. Maybe that is understating it--I wish there was something good to say about the program. The few people that it has helped, so far, are greatly outweighed by those who are in distress over the program.
I don't really root against Presidents once the are elected. I understand those who do, but I'd rather see a President do a good job and leave the country better than it would have been had he not existed. Not better than the guy before, better than what would have happened without him or her in office. We can run elections on based on parties but losing 4 or 8 years is not good for us as a whole.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhy would a 22-year-old even consider buying insurance, seeing as how he is covered till he turns 26?
It isn't a given that they will be covered until age 26. To be covered on a parent's plan, they have to have one. They CAN be on the parent's insurance until 26; that doesn't mean the parent has to allow them to be, has coverage, or even is alive.
will fail because it directly impacts every single American,
like gas prices do. If it's a crap law, and it obviously is,
people will reject it, and they are. They will keep electing
people who will change it until it is changed. Think Prohibition,
another bad unpopular law. Only this wont take 12 years,
because it effects all Americans every day.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhy would a 22-year-old even consider buying insurance, seeing as how he is covered till he turns 26?
Why do you assume all 22 year olds are on
their parents insurance? More of them aren't
than are, it's not mandatory.
"A new online broker, Motif Investing, is offering Obamacare’s friends and foes alike a chance to put their money where their mouth is. Co-founded by a former Microsoft (MSFT) executive, Hardeep Walia, and backed by Goldman Sachs (GS) and other investors, Motif allows customers to bet on narrowly tailored concepts. “A lot of people think conceptually about investing,” he says. “We take ideas and translate them to what we call a ‘motif’—an intelligently weighted basket of up to 30 stocks, built around an idea that people can understand.” Examples of these baskets include Chinese solar, 3D printing, and “caffeine fix”—an assortment of coffee, soda, and energy drink companies.
Two of the hottest motifs right now are Obamacare and repeal Obamacare, Walia says. They represent, respectively, the idea that the law will succeed and that it will fail."
"What’s most striking isn’t the performance of the two funds, but where investors are choosing to place their money. “We don’t have convictions or views on the law itself,” says Walia. “We give you both sides of the equation.” But one is clearly more popular: He says Motif investors have bet 45 times more money on Obamacare’s success than on its failure."
Follow the money......
"“Investors can’t imagine a scenario where the changes the Affordable Care Act started will be repealed and taken away,” says Bob Kocher, a partner specializing in health care and IT at the venture capital firm Venrock."
Quote: steeldcoBTW, that doesn't mean that Obamacare won't fail. Keep in mind that narrow minded people are the bane of this world.
"Repealed" is not likely to happen; we are in the weeds pretty deep already.
Managing the failure will probably be the next big thing--trying to turn the pile of dog poop left by President Obama into something that actually works in some acceptable way will be the hard work that has be done later because we got such a poorly written and horribly implemented law in the first place.
I'm sure everyone who "blames Obama" will be deemed a racist while he has been allowed to "blame Bush" for years...
That had been the case. As of Jan. 1, Affordable Care penalties are in effect:Quote: EvenBobWhy do you assume all 22 year olds are on their parents insurance? More of them aren't than are, it's not mandatory.
"An individual mandate[26][27] requires all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs (such as Tricare) to secure an approved private-insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual has a financial hardship or is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service.[28]."
Seventy-five pages of details on "Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage" are at 26 CFR Parts 1 and 602.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat had been the case. As of Jan. 1, Affordable Care penalties are in effect:
"An individual mandate[26][27] requires all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs (such as Tricare) to secure an approved private-insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual has a financial hardship or is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service.[28]."
Seventy-five pages of details on "Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage" are at 26 CFR Parts 1 and 602.
I don't see where that says that they "have" to be on their parent's insurance--it just says that they have to get insurance or pay the penalty.
As long as the "penalty" is low and only collected from IRS refunds, it is a very weak "mandate" for certain groups of people--especially those who are convinced nothing will ever happen to them (the young folks...).
By forcing insurance companies to take on millions of high maintainence patients....the insurance companies are forced to pay for these people and pass the expense off on the rest of the insured population.
So people who used to pay a 25 dollar copay for an MRI....might be paying 150. People who used to pay 400 dollars a year for their prescriptions, now can be payng 2-3 thousand easily. And it goes on and on. If you dont use obamacare its very cheap. But f you use medical services...well then u lose.
Not only are you paying more yearly for services used through higher copays or higher deductables......but you have often been forced to give up your continuity of care by having to dump your doctors that know your case well..in exchange for new medical staff that you pick out of a brouchure and hope they are satisfactory.
this is the system in a nutshell that people voted for when they voted for obama.
This is the system that many people saw coming....that many people warned of.....but people said that the president wouldnt lie...and if he said we can keep our doctors then thats pretty straightfoward. If he said it will cut the cost of healthcare...then why would he lie.
Theproblem is..possibly the cost of healthcare may be "cut". Maybe an insurance company doesnt pay a doctor as much for a procedure. And we can say the cost is cut. However since the insurance company has to pay for so many more of those procedures by being forced to take all the new high maitainence people....they have to charge the patients more per procedure.
the extra medical outlay by the public....has to trickle down eventually to the economy....where there will be less disposible income
Quote: LarrySPaying the small fee for not having insurance is not the hardship of obamacare that the general public is experiencing.
By forcing insurance companies to take on millions of high maintainence patients....the insurance companies are forced to pay for these people and pass the expense off on the rest of the insured population.
So people who used to pay a 25 dollar copay for an MRI....might be paying 150. People who used to pay 400 dollars a year for their prescriptions, now can be payng 2-3 thousand easily. And it goes on and on. If you dont use obamacare its very cheap. But f you use medical services...well then u lose.
Not only are you paying more yearly for services used through higher copays or higher deductables......but you have often been forced to give up your continuity of care by having to dump your doctors that know your case well..in exchange for new medical staff that you pick out of a brouchure and hope they are satisfactory.
this is the system in a nutshell that people voted for when they voted for obama.
This is the system that many people saw coming....that many people warned of.....but people said that the president wouldnt lie...and if he said we can keep our doctors then thats pretty straightfoward. If he said it will cut the cost of healthcare...then why would he lie.
Theproblem is..possibly the cost of healthcare may be "cut". Maybe an insurance company doesnt pay a doctor as much for a procedure. And we can say the cost is cut. However since the insurance company has to pay for so many more of those procedures by being forced to take all the new high maitainence people....they have to charge the patients more per procedure.
the extra medical outlay by the public....has to trickle down eventually to the economy....where there will be less disposible income
The government has some great ways of lying to us that we (as a whole) seem to accept without question...
They have a budget item that is supposed to be increased by 10% from $20 billion to $22 billion...
They reduce the budgeted increase from 10% to 5% making it a $1 billion increase instead of $2 billion...
Then they tell us they have "saved" $1 billion...
Yet they have spent $1 billion more...
Why do we accept it?
